RugbyRebels

Coco wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It certainly seems a little strange that someone who identifies as a woman would choose to wear a beard.

(Nonetheless, obviously it is their right to do so etc etc)

You are correct, I would imagine it is within their rights to wear a beard. That said, by doing so, it would be within the rights of anybody to deem this whole issue a farce without being labeled a bigot.

/queue the sjw

Mikey Brown wrote:

Coco wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It certainly seems a little strange that someone who identifies as a woman would choose to wear a beard.

(Nonetheless, obviously it is their right to do so etc etc)

You are correct, I would imagine it is within their rights to wear a beard. That said, by doing so, it would be within the rights of anybody to deem this whole issue a farce without being labeled a bigot.

/queue the sjw

That’s the particular bit I’d disagree with, but I get your point. As ever, people often only want to take the most extreme cases from the opposing side to use as an example.

I can imagine a lot of transitioning people taking issue with it too, it does seem like taking the piss a bit, particularly when so many fight so hard to combat the lazy, cartoon portrayal of all trans people as ‘blokes with beards claiming to be women’.

Stom wrote:So...

Just so you all feel fucking horrible about your words.

The image Mells thoughtfully attached is of a former WOMAN who has been transitioning to a man.

It has no bearing on the article at all.

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:So...

Just so you all feel fucking horrible about your words.

The image Mells thoughtfully attached is of a former WOMAN who has been transitioning to a man.

It has no bearing on the article at all.

I dont feel at all horrible about my words. The article Mells posted was not about that picture. It was about bearded, muscular players being untouchable by querying refs because the refs have been instructed that their hands are tied in enforcing certain rules, and being deemed bigots for trying to get clarification before enforcing said rules. Farce.

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:So...

Just so you all feel fucking horrible about your words.

The image Mells thoughtfully attached is of a former WOMAN who has been transitioning to a man.

It has no bearing on the article at all.

I dont feel at all horrible about my words. The article Mells posted was not about that picture. It was about bearded, muscular players being untouchable by querying refs because the refs have been instructed that their hands are tied in enforcing certain rules, and being deemed bigots for trying to get clarification before enforcing said rules. Farce.

Anything to suggest the article is anything more than scaremongering?

There's a difference between "truth" and "the truth", lol.

Just use common sense. As others have pointed out, why would anyone who is transitioning to a woman want to be seen with a beard?

If they're trying to be women, they want to be seen as women, not men.

We're not talking Eddie Izzard here. We're talking MJ Rodriguez or Dominique Jackson.

The Times should be taken with a pinch of salt, just like any other media, and especially on subjects like this.

Stom wrote:So...

Just so you all feel fucking horrible about your words.

The image Mells thoughtfully attached is of a former WOMAN who has been transitioning to a man.

It has no bearing on the article at all.

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:
I dont feel at all horrible about my words. The article Mells posted was not about that picture. It was about bearded, muscular players being untouchable by querying refs because the refs have been instructed that their hands are tied in enforcing certain rules, and being deemed bigots for trying to get clarification before enforcing said rules. Farce.

Anything to suggest the article is anything more than scaremongering?

There's a difference between "truth" and "the truth", lol.

Just use common sense. As others have pointed out, why would anyone who is transitioning to a woman want to be seen with a beard?

If they're trying to be women, they want to be seen as women, not men.

We're not talking Eddie Izzard here. We're talking MJ Rodriguez or Dominique Jackson.

The Times should be taken with a pinch of salt, just like any other media, and especially on subjects like this.

Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

Coco wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m feeling mischievous so I’ll leave this here, light the blue touch paper and leave:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... 1569691345

Injury fears over rugby’s trans women drive referees off pitch


Rugby referees are quitting the women’s amateur game because they fear rules allowing transgender women to play will lead to serious injuries.

Referees say they have been warned not to challenge bearded or heavily muscled players appearing for women’s teams.

Under the England Rugby rules, transgender women must take a blood test to show that their testosterone has been below a set level (five nanomoles per litre) for 12 months before applying to play. That is half the level set by the International Olympic Committee. But referees say they have to take it on trust rather than check whether a player has been cleared by the Rugby Football Union (RFU).

One, who did not want to be identified, said: “Being forced to prioritise hurt feelings over broken bones exposes me to personal litigation from female players who have been damaged by players who are biologically male. This is driving female players and referees out of the game.”

Another referee, who said they had encountered five bearded players in women’s teams in half a season, said: “If you even ask the question, you are told you are a bigot.”


Last month Kelly Morgan, a trans woman, said she wanted to play in the Welsh women’s leagues despite her physical advantage. “I do feel guilt but what can you do?” she said. Her club captain said she had folded an opponent “like a deckchair”.

Under the laws of the game, a referee is “the sole judge of fact and of law during the match” and is required to remove a player who presents a danger to themselves or others.

The Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, who is urging Olympic chiefs not to use women’s sport as a “live experiment” for the inclusion of transgender athletes, said rugby appeared to be operating a double standard.

She said: “My daughter Grace was told at the age of 11 she could no longer play with the boys because it was no longer safe. How can they have that rule in place and . . . say it is perfectly OK for a transgender woman who is a biological man to play with the girls, but girls who are girls are not allowed to play with the boys because it is dangerous?”

A Swedish study found that after 12 months of hormone therapy, a trans woman was still likely to have performance benefits over one whose gender identity matched their sex at birth.

The RFU refused to say how many trans people it had authorised to play in their identified gender. It also did not respond to questions about injuries involving women and trans players.

It said:“The RFU policy is derived from and aligned to the principles and application of the World Rugby transgender policy.”

Dr Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women said:“They have been put under tremendous pressure by well funded and powerful trans lobby groups telling them it is inclusion at any cost.”

Another bottle of red?
.

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:
I dont feel at all horrible about my words. The article Mells posted was not about that picture. It was about bearded, muscular players being untouchable by querying refs because the refs have been instructed that their hands are tied in enforcing certain rules, and being deemed bigots for trying to get clarification before enforcing said rules. Farce.

Anything to suggest the article is anything more than scaremongering?

There's a difference between "truth" and "the truth", lol.

Just use common sense. As others have pointed out, why would anyone who is transitioning to a woman want to be seen with a beard?

If they're trying to be women, they want to be seen as women, not men.

We're not talking Eddie Izzard here. We're talking MJ Rodriguez or Dominique Jackson.

The Times should be taken with a pinch of salt, just like any other media, and especially on subjects like this.

Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

morepork wrote:Coco's first ever post about rugby fuelled by anti-PC outrage.

Classic.

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:
Anything to suggest the article is anything more than scaremongering?

There's a difference between "truth" and "the truth", lol.

Just use common sense. As others have pointed out, why would anyone who is transitioning to a woman want to be seen with a beard?

If they're trying to be women, they want to be seen as women, not men.

We're not talking Eddie Izzard here. We're talking MJ Rodriguez or Dominique Jackson.

The Times should be taken with a pinch of salt, just like any other media, and especially on subjects like this.

Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

Quite possibly, yes. Yes, I am.

I more believe the kind of stories Verity Smith has reported about being spat at, refused play, and so on. He hadn't been playing with the men because he hadn't undergone hormone treatment. But he did have a condition that causes bodyhair growth.

The same condition any non-transitioning woman could also have and suffer ridicule for.

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:
Anything to suggest the article is anything more than scaremongering?

There's a difference between "truth" and "the truth", lol.

Just use common sense. As others have pointed out, why would anyone who is transitioning to a woman want to be seen with a beard?

If they're trying to be women, they want to be seen as women, not men.

We're not talking Eddie Izzard here. We're talking MJ Rodriguez or Dominique Jackson.

The Times should be taken with a pinch of salt, just like any other media, and especially on subjects like this.

Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

I think you're falling for the logical fallacy that does come up quite a lot when this kind of subject comes up, which is the idea that being able to play in women's sport is a reward worthy of pretending to be a trans woman. As previously discussed, being a trans woman in this society is shit and people just don't do it if they're not genuinely trans - the reward of being able to play a lower level of rugby is just not good enough to balance out the increased risk of murder!

I do think the story is scaremongering with very little basis in fact. I wouldn't call it an outright lie (although the Times is hardly without form when it comes to making up a quote from a "source who wanted to remain anonymous") - there probably exists a referee who has an issue with having being called a bigot because they wanted to check a burly woman to see if she was one of those transes that he's read about in the paper* - but it's almost certainly overblown.

As mentioned by Stom, trans women want to be taken for women - they're highly unlikely to be maintaining a man's physique and a full beard (although it's to be noted that if you want electrolysis to make it so the beard never grows again, you have to stop shaving for a certain period, which is one situation where a trans woman might have a beard for a short time) and I do not believe in the slightest that there is an epidemic of burly men posing as women and daring refs to make a deal out of it. Quite apart from anything else, other teams would refuse to play them and there'd be a furore with more evidence than, "an anonymous source said." The fact that the notoriously transphobic Times couldn't find even one rugby team who'd had a problem with playing against a trans man suggests it's something of nothing.

Puja

*On a side note, let's say we invest referees with the power that this article seems to be asking for them to have - that they should be able to investigate female rugby players and decide whether they are female enough or not. 1) How many false positives would that throw up, given that women rugby players are, as a group, more likely to be taller and stronger than the societal average and front row forwards of any gender are likely to be child-scaringly ugly. And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Coco's first ever post about rugby fuelled by anti-PC outrage.

Classic.

Oh go blow it out your balloon knot.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Coco's first ever post about rugby fuelled by anti-PC outrage.

Classic.

Oh go blow it out your balloon knot.

I’d rather mop it up with my beard. If that single tabloid article is really your frame of reference here, then don’t let the door hit you in the balloons on the way out.



Peace

morepork wrote:Do inconclusive documents often cause you this level of anxiety? You do seem to be, you know, jumping to conclusions.

Coco wrote:

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:
Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

I think you're falling for the logical fallacy that does come up quite a lot when this kind of subject comes up, which is the idea that being able to play in women's sport is a reward worthy of pretending to be a trans woman. As previously discussed, being a trans woman in this society is shit and people just don't do it if they're not genuinely trans - the reward of being able to play a lower level of rugby is just not good enough to balance out the increased risk of murder!

I do think the story is scaremongering with very little basis in fact. I wouldn't call it an outright lie (although the Times is hardly without form when it comes to making up a quote from a "source who wanted to remain anonymous") - there probably exists a referee who has an issue with having being called a bigot because they wanted to check a burly woman to see if she was one of those transes that he's read about in the paper* - but it's almost certainly overblown.

As mentioned by Stom, trans women want to be taken for women - they're highly unlikely to be maintaining a man's physique and a full beard (although it's to be noted that if you want electrolysis to make it so the beard never grows again, you have to stop shaving for a certain period, which is one situation where a trans woman might have a beard for a short time) and I do not believe in the slightest that there is an epidemic of burly men posing as women and daring refs to make a deal out of it. Quite apart from anything else, other teams would refuse to play them and there'd be a furore with more evidence than, "an anonymous source said." The fact that the notoriously transphobic Times couldn't find even one rugby team who'd had a problem with playing against a trans man suggests it's something of nothing.

Puja

*On a side note, let's say we invest referees with the power that this article seems to be asking for them to have - that they should be able to investigate female rugby players and decide whether they are female enough or not. 1) How many false positives would that throw up, given that women rugby players are, as a group, more likely to be taller and stronger than the societal average and front row forwards of any gender are likely to be child-scaringly ugly. And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.

How about this... why not get more information and more of a certainty about hormonal and physical advantages before allowing this to become an experiment we are all watching unfold at the detriment of all of the women, whether they be intersex, trans, or not. The jury is still out on hormone levels, possible physical advantages, and so on. Why is it bigoted to ask for proof? And why are the concerns of non trans females being treated as though they are silly or bigoted? Where is the happy medium and "equality"?

Coco wrote:

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:
Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?

Truth and "the truth"... semantics?

I think you're falling for the logical fallacy that does come up quite a lot when this kind of subject comes up, which is the idea that being able to play in women's sport is a reward worthy of pretending to be a trans woman. As previously discussed, being a trans woman in this society is shit and people just don't do it if they're not genuinely trans - the reward of being able to play a lower level of rugby is just not good enough to balance out the increased risk of murder!

I do think the story is scaremongering with very little basis in fact. I wouldn't call it an outright lie (although the Times is hardly without form when it comes to making up a quote from a "source who wanted to remain anonymous") - there probably exists a referee who has an issue with having being called a bigot because they wanted to check a burly woman to see if she was one of those transes that he's read about in the paper* - but it's almost certainly overblown.

As mentioned by Stom, trans women want to be taken for women - they're highly unlikely to be maintaining a man's physique and a full beard (although it's to be noted that if you want electrolysis to make it so the beard never grows again, you have to stop shaving for a certain period, which is one situation where a trans woman might have a beard for a short time) and I do not believe in the slightest that there is an epidemic of burly men posing as women and daring refs to make a deal out of it. Quite apart from anything else, other teams would refuse to play them and there'd be a furore with more evidence than, "an anonymous source said." The fact that the notoriously transphobic Times couldn't find even one rugby team who'd had a problem with playing against a trans man suggests it's something of nothing.

Puja

*On a side note, let's say we invest referees with the power that this article seems to be asking for them to have - that they should be able to investigate female rugby players and decide whether they are female enough or not. 1) How many false positives would that throw up, given that women rugby players are, as a group, more likely to be taller and stronger than the societal average and front row forwards of any gender are likely to be child-scaringly ugly. And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.

How about this... why not get more information and more of a certainty about hormonal and physical advantages before allowing this to become an experiment we are all watching unfold at the detriment of all of the women, whether they be intersex, trans, or not. The jury is still out on hormone levels, possible physical advantages, and so on. Why is it bigoted to ask for proof? And why are the concerns of non trans females being treated as though they are silly or bigoted? Where is the happy medium and "equality"?

Mikey Brown wrote:AFAB?

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Do inconclusive documents often cause you this level of anxiety? You do seem to be, you know, jumping to conclusions.

Are you charging me for this professional assessment or is it complimentary? I doubt I can afford your rates as I am a simple blue collar business owner... without a degree or fancy, important capital latters after my name.

Puja wrote:And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.